bayesian-reasoning-calibration
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/bayesian-reasoning-calibrationUpdate probability estimates using Bayesian reasoning to reduce overconfidence.
- Helps forecast outcomes and calibrate confidence under uncertainty.
- Integrates with prior beliefs, likelihoods, and new evidence data.
- Calculates posterior probabilities by combining priors with observed evidence.
- Delivers revised probability estimates to improve decision quality.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/bayesian-reasoning-calibrationView on GitHub ↗
---
name: bayesian-reasoning-calibration
description: Applies Bayesian reasoning to systematically update probability estimates with new evidence, helping make better forecasts and avoid overconfidence. Use when making predictions or judgments under uncertainty, forecasting outcomes, evaluating probabilities, testing hypotheses, calibrating confidence, assessing risks with uncertain data, or when user mentions priors, likelihoods, Bayes theorem, probability updates, forecasting, calibration, or belief revision.
---
# Bayesian Reasoning & Calibration
## Table of Contents
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [1. Define the Question](#1--define-the-question)
- [2. Establish Prior Beliefs](#2--establish-prior-beliefs)
- [3. Identify Evidence & Likelihoods](#3--identify-evidence--likelihoods)
- [4. Calculate Posterior](#4--calculate-posterior)
- [5. Calibrate & Document](#5--calibrate--document)
- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
**Core formula:** P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H) / P(E), where P(H) = prior, P(E|H) = likelihood, P(H|E) = posterior.
**Quick Example:**
```markdown
# Should we launch Feature X?
## Prior Belief
Before beta testing: 60% chance of adoption >20%
- Base rate: Similar features get 15-25% adoption
- Our feature seems stronger than average
- Prior: 60%
## New Evidence
Beta test: 35% of users adopted (70 of 200 users)
## Likelihoods
If true adoption is >20%:
- P(seeing 35% in beta | adoption >20%) = 75% (likely to see high beta if true)
If true adoption is ≤20%:
- P(seeing 35% in beta | adoption ≤20%) = 15% (unlikely to see high beta if false)
## Bayesian Update
Posterior = (75% × 60%) / [(75% × 60%) + (15% × 40%)]
Posterior = 45% / (45% + 6%) = 88%
## Conclusion
Updated belief: 88% confident adoption will exceed 20%
Evidence strongly supports launch, but not certain.
```
## Workflow
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
```
Bayesian Reasoning Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define the question
- [ ] Step 2: Establish prior beliefs
- [ ] Step 3: Identify evidence and likelihoods
- [ ] Step 4: Calculate posterior
- [ ] Step 5: Calibrate and document
```
**Step 1: Define the question**
Clarify hypothesis (specific, testable claim), probability to estimate, timeframe (when outcome is known), success criteria, and why this matters (what decision depends on it). Example: "Product feature will achieve >20% adoption within 3 months" - matters for launch decision.
**Step 2: Establish prior beliefs**
Set initial probability using base rates (general frequency), reference class (similar situations), specific differences, and explicit probability assignment with justification. Good priors are based on base rates, account for differences, honest about uncertainty, and include ranges if unsure (e.g., 40-60%). Avoid purely intuitive priors, ignoring base rates, or extreme values without justification.
**Step 3: Identify evidence and likelihoods**
Assess evidence (specific observation/data), diagnostic power (does it distinguish hypotheses?), P(E|H) (probability if hypothesis TRUE), P(E|¬H) (probability if FALSE), and calculate likelihood ratio = P(E|H) / P(E|¬H). LR > 10 = very strong evidence, 3-10 = moderate, 1-3 = weak, ≈1 = not diagnostic, <1 = evidence against.
**Step 4: Calculate posterior**
Apply Bayes' Theorem: P(H|E) = [P(E|H) × P(H)] / P(E), or use odds form: Posterior Odds = Prior Odds × Likelihood Ratio. Calculate P(E) = P(E|H)×P(H) + P(E|¬H)×P(¬H), get posterior probability, and interpret change. For simple cases → Use `resources/template.md` calculator. For complex cases (multiple hypotheses) → Study `resources/methodology.md`.
**Step 5: Calibrate and document**
Check calibration (over/underconfident?), validate assumptions (are likelihoods reasonable?), perform sensitivity analysis, create `bayesian-reasoning-calibration.md`, and note limitations. Self-check using `resources/evaluators/rubric_bayesian_reasoning_calibration.json`: verify prior based on base rates, likelihoods justified, evidence diagnostic (LR ≠ 1), calculation correct, posterior calibrated, assumptions stated, sensitivity noted. Minimum standard: Score ≥ 3.5.
## Common Patterns
**For forecasting:**
- Use base rates as starting point
- Update incrementally as evidence arrives
- Track forecast accuracy over time
- Calibrate by comparing predictions to outcomes
**For hypothesis testing:**
- State competing hypotheses explicitly
- Calculate likelihood ratio for evidence
- Update belief proportionally to evidence strength
- Don't claim certainty unless LR is extreme
**For risk assessment:**
- Consider multiple scenarios (not just binary)
- Update risks as new data arrives
- Use ranges when uncertain about likelihoods
- Perform sensitivity analysis
**For avoiding bias:**
- Force explicit priors (prevents anchoring to evidence)
- Use reference classes (prevents ignoring base rates)
- Calculate mathematically (prevents motivated reasoning)
- Document before seeing outcome (enables calibration)
## Guardrails
**Do:**
- State priors explicitly before seeing all evidence
- Use base rates and reference classes
- Estimate likelihoods with justification
- Update incrementally as evidence arrives
- Be honest about uncertainty
- Perform sensitivity analysis
- Track forecasts for calibration
- Acknowledge limits of the model
**Don't:**
- Use extreme priors (1%, 99%) without exceptional justification
- Ignore base rates (common bias)
- Treat all evidence as equally diagnostic
- Update to 100% certainty (almost never justified)
- Cherry-pick evidence
- Skip documenting reasoning
- Forget to calibrate (compare predictions to outcomes)
- Apply to questions where probability is meaningless
## Quick Reference
- **Standard template**: `resources/template.md`
- **Multiple hypotheses**: `resources/methodology.md`
- **Examples**: `resources/examples/product-launch.md`, `resources/examples/medical-diagnosis.md`
- **Quality rubric**: `resources/evaluators/rubric_bayesian_reasoning_calibration.json`
**Bayesian Formula (Odds Form)**:
```
Posterior Odds = Prior Odds × Likelihood Ratio
```
**Likelihood Ratio**:
```
LR = P(Evidence | Hypothesis True) / P(Evidence | Hypothesis False)
```
**Output naming**: `bayesian-reasoning-calibration.md` or `{topic}-forecast.md`
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".